Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[LGA Link N Train]

39 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Wouldn't Phase 2 be faster since the tunnels are already pre-built? I also see that the existing tunnels have provisions for an express track.

Also, have they actually started working on Phase 2 or is it still in the planning stage?

They’ll start on Phase 2 sometime in 2019

[Italianstallion]

On 12/8/2018 at 7:59 PM, shiznit1987 said:

IMHO, are we really sure that Phases 3 and 4 are even a good idea? Where I'm coming from is that 2nd Ave below 63rd St is *not* really part of the East Midtown CBD. 2nd and 1st Aves are pretty much pure residential all the way down Manhattan, and if we're going to spend multi-billions on subway extensions it really should be either 1) Expanding capacity into Core Midtown or 2) serving transit deserts like 3rd Ave (Bronx) or Utica Av. My fear is everyone is drawing up plans for QB 2nd Ave services that to be honest I don't think anyone is going to really want to use (I live along QB BTW). People want anything between 8th and 3rd Aves and a lower SAS is at best convenient to 3rd Ave offices which already have decent subway access. 

I know some advance the argument that the city will somehow upzone or adjust Far East Midtown to become another office district but I doubt that's going to happen. The reality is that 1) That area is really well heeled and 2) with the general anti-development mindset of many city leaders I doubt the political will is there to have 2nd Ave morph into a business zone. 

Long story short, I think we are making a very big assumption that the SAS below 63rd st will be as big of a hit as the Uptown/Bronx section, and I personally don't see it.  

 

It's residential, but high density. And there are plenty of ridership generators there -- the UN; Bellevue, Beth Israel, NYU and VA Hospitals, Stuyvesant Town, public housing, the Water St. office buildings. One problem is that it'll dead-end in the Financial District. It needs a Brooklyn connection.

[Wallyhorse]

On 12/23/2018 at 6:00 PM, Italianstallion said:

It's residential, but high density. And there are plenty of ridership generators there -- the UN; Bellevue, Beth Israel, NYU and VA Hospitals, Stuyvesant Town, public housing, the Water St. office buildings. One problem is that it'll dead-end in the Financial District. It needs a Brooklyn connection.

Which is why my original thought was to do it with the running via a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel, coming in at Court Street (current Transit Museum) and on the as-present unused tracks at Hoyt-Schermerhorn, allowing the and or to run express on Fulton while the )T) takes over local duties, allowing for de-interlining (except late nights when the  would be extended to Lefferts if the goes there otherwise). 

[Porter]

Quote

If the MTA resumes work, a section built from 110th to 120th Streets could finally be used. But parts of the original plan would have to change.

The thinking back in the 1970s was to use a section as maintenance tracks for trains that needed repair work. Now it would be used as an island platform if and when the 116th Street station gets built.

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transit/2018/12/08/second-avenue-subway-tunnel-never-used-a-rare-look-manhattan-nyc

What happened to the platform width issue?

[Wallyhorse]

14 hours ago, Porter said:

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transit/2018/12/08/second-avenue-subway-tunnel-never-used-a-rare-look-manhattan-nyc

What happened to the platform width issue?

It would be better to simply do side platforms at 116 with no crossover.  Yes, that could create a problem down the road if a Bronx extension is built, but it probably best solves that problem.  

[bobtehpanda]

On 12/28/2018 at 2:26 AM, Porter said:

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transit/2018/12/08/second-avenue-subway-tunnel-never-used-a-rare-look-manhattan-nyc

What happened to the platform width issue?

IIRC they are widening the tunnel so they can build an ADA-compliant platform.

[LGA Link N Train]

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

IIRC they are widening the tunnel so they can build an ADA-compliant platform.

Wouldn’t that section require Cut and Cover?

[bobtehpanda]

14 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Wouldn’t that section require Cut and Cover?

Yes.

[Italianstallion]

On 12/30/2018 at 2:02 PM, bobtehpanda said:

Yes.

So, all the stations appear to be cut-and-cover. Also, interesting that there is no bedrock north of 96th. That should make boring easier.

[Metro CSW]

8 hours ago, Italianstallion said:

So, all the stations appear to be cut-and-cover. Also, interesting that there is no bedrock north of 96th. That should make boring easier.

Boring? The tunnels already exists north of 96th, up to 120th

[bobtehpanda]

19 hours ago, Italianstallion said:

So, all the stations appear to be cut-and-cover. Also, interesting that there is no bedrock north of 96th. That should make boring easier.

Some of them are mined or partially mined to reduce surface disruption. 72nd and 86th were, for example.

In practice I don't think it saves all that much disruption vs. cut and cover, and it costs more, so we should revisit this cut-and-cover avoidance decision.

[Around the Horn]

My one question I always have when I read this thread is, how soon could the whole thing have been built if it was built concurrently (i.e.. as Phase 1 was finishing start phase 2, or if the TBM had continued south instead of stopping at 63rd) and built as cut and cover?

[LGA Link N Train]

27 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

My one question I always have when I read this thread is, how soon could the whole thing have been built if it was built concurrently (i.e.. as Phase 1 was finishing start phase 2, or if the TBM had continued south instead of stopping at 63rd) and built as cut and cover?

I’d say that if All 4 phases of SAS were built correctly (with provisions for Future connections of course), then I’d say 5-10 years max. 

[Italianstallion]

13 hours ago, Metro CSW said:

Boring? The tunnels already exists north of 96th, up to 120th

Not exactly. There are 2, disconnected, existing tunnels - 99 to 105 and 110 to 120. The 106 St. Station will be excavated via cut and cover, while boring will be required from 120 to the terminus at Park and 125.

[Lawrence St]

Will they utilize the tunnels for Phase 2 or make new ones? 

I honestly think that 96th to 125th St should be built as three tracks and have peak direction express service. 

[OIG119]

27 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Will they utilize the tunnels for Phase 2 or make new ones? 

I honestly think that 96th to 125th St should be built as three tracks and have peak direction express service. 

The plan is to use the existing tunnel for Phase 2. IIRC 125th Street is supposed to have three tracks.

[CenSin]

46 minutes ago, OIG119 said:

125th Street is supposed to have three tracks.

I think you’re out of date on that. They cut corners again.

[Lawrence St]

21 minutes ago, CenSin said:

I think you’re out of date on that. They cut corners again.

...

So instead of creating an easier process for future projects they just want to be cheap? Smfh

[Wallyhorse]

On 12/30/2018 at 2:02 PM, bobtehpanda said:

Yes.

If so, 116 should be as a two-side platform station.  

[EvilMonologue]

Someone posted something about Alon Levy's subway crayon, and I was wondering what your thoughts were regarding his plan for the T. Under his plan, the T goes from Utica to Williamsburg, up 3rd ave, then goes through Central Park North of 63rd st and into Washington Heights. I'm not so sure about the part North of 63rd st, but I do think there is something to be said for having the train have good transfers along 3rd rather than 2nd. Perhaps between Grand Central and 63rd st it snake over to 3rd ave then go back to 2nd. Thoughts?

[bobtehpanda]

5 hours ago, EvilMonologue said:

Someone posted something about Alon Levy's subway crayon, and I was wondering what your thoughts were regarding his plan for the T. Under his plan, the T goes from Utica to Williamsburg, up 3rd ave, then goes through Central Park North of 63rd st and into Washington Heights. I'm not so sure about the part North of 63rd st, but I do think there is something to be said for having the train have good transfers along 3rd rather than 2nd. Perhaps between Grand Central and 63rd st it snake over to 3rd ave then go back to 2nd. Thoughts?

I think Third is overrated for the subway. One block station transfers are not uncommon so I don't think you gain very much. And some stations, like Third Av on the (L), also extend to Second.

I would much rather see Third be used for a regional rail line; four tracks, one pair going from MNR Grand Central to Hoboken, and one from LIRR Grand Central to Atlantic.

[RR503]

8 hours ago, EvilMonologue said:

Someone posted something about Alon Levy's subway crayon, and I was wondering what your thoughts were regarding his plan for the T. Under his plan, the T goes from Utica to Williamsburg, up 3rd ave, then goes through Central Park North of 63rd st and into Washington Heights. I'm not so sure about the part North of 63rd st, but I do think there is something to be said for having the train have good transfers along 3rd rather than 2nd. Perhaps between Grand Central and 63rd st it snake over to 3rd ave then go back to 2nd. Thoughts?

There's also the issue that attaching a Utica line to Third condemns it to accessing only 6th and Nassau north of Fulton. If you just *have* to do Utica as something that's not an IRT EPW branch, it's a better idea to send 2nd over the Manhattan Bridge and 6th down Utica -- then transfers are much, much more abundant. 

[EvilMonologue]

So even just looking at phase 3, it probably wouldn't be necessary or worth it to have the T go from Houston on 2nd ave, then switch to 3rd before Grand Central, have a new station at 63rd st on 3rd ave, and then reconnect with the Q at 72nd st?

[R68ACTrain]

On 12/22/2018 at 2:55 PM, RR503 said:

 doesn’t serve Grand anymore. The BJ tracks are reconfigured to hit 6th exp instead of 6th local, and the  use them to get to the outer tracks at Essex. On the middle track, you have  trains turning from 4th Avenue—which, to be absolutely clear, means it and the  never interact. If you want more than 15tph on 4th local (remember,  goes to Euclid), you can reconfigure the Bowery area so you can relay extra trains on the middle tracks there, or you can spill Essex into the trolley terminal to give the  two terminal tracks. 

Then, SAS takes over Grand, and then runs over the Manhattan Bridge to Brooklyn. 

Which means for  trains to run via the  to 6th then on the   to Manhattan. 

[Lawrence St]

What I would do is have the continue straight into the Bronx with no curve onto 125th St, (passageway would instead be built), via new tunnel then become elevated to 3rd Avenue-149th St, then make all original 3rd Avenue elevated stops to Gun Hill Road.